Wednesday, June 30, 2010

As we approach July 4th let us not forget our national heritage. Our guiding principals over the past two hundred and thirty four years of indiviual liberty, limited government, self reliance, competitive capitalism, and a belief that as Americans we can accomplish anything we put our minds to.

In these days of seemingly constant drift toward a progressive collectivist society, all freedom loving Americans who hold up the individual over the tyranny of the progressive collective state must remain vigilant and steadfast in their opposition to the forces of those intent on turning the United States of America into a collectivist state.

Chairman TAO over at Corrupting Conservatives, the premier progressive collectivist blog of the year, has been having some fun with recent posts at Rational Nation USA.

It is apparent, at least to the rational thinkers amongst us, he has the usual personality disorder most all extreme progressive collectivist suffer from. The medical term (if there is one) escapes me for the moment so I shall substitute my own... Severe Delusional Collective Nanny State Worship.

Perhaps the above description some may find harsh. It is nevertheless an accurate one. For those who may not have braved a visit to his den of collectivist thought a visit is well worthwhile. If for no other reason than to gain a glimpse into the mind of a most dangerous foe, the progressive collectivist. The ghosts of those who followed the philosophy and principals of the progressive collectivists such as V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, and Pot Pol I am sure would agree.

For all the Chairman's talk about owning his own business he is a prime example of one who both is willing and happy giving the government maximum economic and political control over his life. Irrespective of what TAO may say publicly on his blog he is desirous of forcing the same for you as well. Regardless of the fact you did not ask for it nor do you want it.

Progressive collectivists decided long ago they know what is best for all, and it is always Leviathan government controlled by those suffering equally from Sever Delusional Collective Nanny State Worship. A question to illustrate the point... Have you ever found a progressive collectivist to agree with anything that differed in the slightest from their cherished progressive collectivist belief?... I thought not.

There was a time when liberalism was actually attractive. That era died with Thomas Jefferson. The concept of liberty is simple to understand unless, as the progressive collectivists intentionally do, you chose to make it complex. Liberty, at least as understood by most conservatives and Libertarians means... The freedom to make choices of your own free will with respect to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Liberty is the ability and right of the individual to make decisions with respect to their economic and personal welfare and desires as they see fit. Liberty requires the individual accepts responsibility for themselves and acts on their own behalf and self interests.

Liberty requires resistance to the state that with each regulation, with each new entitlement, with each new expansion of the bureaucracy, another small lose of liberty occurs. Maximum liberty requires the recognition that each and every individual is entitled to the vary same liberties you and I are. For those who love liberty it is our deepest responsibility to recognize and respect the rights of others to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness equally as well as our own...

It is no ones right (including Leviathan) to take from someone and give to another that which they have not earned the right to posses.

Since Chairman TAO made comments on a recent post at Rational Nation USA which I, the editor lacked time to respond to immediately following his post time I have decided to address them for the Chairman with this post.

The issue of slavery: I never claimed slavery was okay. It is both morally and ethically wrong and deserves the greatest condemnation. My reference to the slave trade and Africans selling their own into slavery was merely a point of reference to demonstrate the realities of the times. The obvious attempt to make me out a racist is so typical of your ilk.

With respect to Jefferson - It was not "okay" he had slaves. It remains the glaring personal flaw the man who was a great thinker and wrote our Declaration of Independence had. It however does not change the beauty or the profound wisdom and significance of his words.

With respect to Lincoln - Once again you mis use my reference. My position on Lincoln is that he was a statist. He used the federal government to forcibly keep the union together at a great loss of life. As I am sure you know the Civil War was more about economics and markets that slavery. An industrializing (if you will) north and an agrarian south who wished to remain so. Lincoln used his statist powers and the US military to prevent the southern states from succeeding from the union. As the United States was formed by voluntary association and entering into a contract by mutual agreement there is a sound argument the southern states should ave been allowed to succeed. Slavery was just the rallying cry.

With respect to the womens suffrage movement - I will concede that there was likely never any thought given by the founding fathers as to women having the right to vote. Women unfortunately held second class citizenship throughout much of western history. The still do in many parts of the world today.

As to landless males: The rational the founders held with respect to owning property as a ticket to the right to vote was based on sound reasoning as they saw it. Property ownership gave individuals a state in the land and society. As the nation was agrarian, ownership of property allowed people to provide the necessities of life for themselves. Landless individuals on the other hand were viewed as lacking a stake and were much more likely to be the least productive and the ones most dependent on government for their welfare.

I wish to make perfectly clear I do not advocate the return to slavery, women not having the right to vote, nor the idea that just because you do not own property you should not have the right to vote. Neither do I know of any conservative or Libertarian who feels we should.

I will state however that it is a perfectly reasonable and rational position (IMO) that to vote in America one should posses the ability to speak, read, and write English. Sorry liberals Michael Savage has it right when he says... Borders, Language, Culture.

I find it interesting the Chairman chose to use Israel as example of how we should pull our support of this only middle eastern democracy in support of his position statement. Logically one would have to concede the point he makes is rational. It would be my preference that we rethink our entire foreign policy along the lines of the Washington's and Jefferson's philosophy... As well as that of Representative Ron Paul. However, to do so at this time would almost certainly result in the genocide if the Israli people at the hands of the Iranian extremist President or some other irrational extremist in some other irrational extremist Islamic theocratic state. But I am sure TAO is not at all concerned with this likelihood being no doubt the supporter of all things Islamic, no mater the irrationality.

The point of this little travel through Chairman TAO's obvious transparent lack of integrity is just this... Conservatives and Libertarians can and will debate progressive collectivists. Proponents of individualism, liberty, and the right of free will and association have been doing it for well over a hundred years. We have will continue to acknowledge their valid rational points as infrequent as they are and when correct we will concede.

The Chairman's attempts to misrepresent, twist, and turn the words of conservatives and Libertarians only shows his strict adherence to the progressive collectivist ideology and it's universal failure wherever it as been tried. Equally as telling and importantly is his lack of rational and unemotional thought.

Again I urge anyone who has not visited the progressive collectivist blog of the year, Corrupting Conservatives to do so. This is the irrational and inherently evil thought process that liberty is up against. Do not be fooled by the "fuzzy feel good emotionalism" of the progressive collectivists. Do the research, there are many examples of the abject failure of Chairman TAO's philosophy in modern history.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said House Minority Leader John Boehner "is not a hard worker" and cuts out of the Capitol early for bar-hopping evenings in Washington.

On his “Morning Joe” show Wednesday morning, the former Florida Republican congressman described Boehner as a disengaged pol whose work ethic doesn’t hold a candle to that of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

In the past I have gotten the feeling that Boehner is either a 'rummy' or a smoker - his appearance kind of gives that up.

In the least we need leadership in the conservative resurgence that is energetic, invigorated and ready to fight. Especially if the Grand Old Party takes back both houses of Congress. If that is to mean anything to the nation then in the least leadership needs to be far better than the 'cocktails at five' crowd.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The New York Times has an interesting story up regarding the 11 people (so called ''illegals") supposedly living unremarkable, suburban American lives yet spying (for years) for the S.V.R. (the successor to the KGB):

The alleged agents were directed to gather information on nuclear weapons, American policy toward Iran, C.I.A. leadership, Congressional politics and many other topics, prosecutors say. The Russian spies made contact with a former high-ranking American national security official and a nuclear weapons researcher, among others. But the charges did not include espionage, and it was unclear what secrets the suspected spy ring — which included five couples — actually managed to collect.

The details sound like they are straight out of an Iam Fleming story:

Criminal complaints filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday read like an old-fashioned cold war thriller: Spies swapping identical orange bags as they brushed past one another in a train station stairway. An identity borrowed from a dead Canadian, forged passports, messages sent by shortwave burst transmission or in invisible ink. A money cache buried for years in a field in upstate New York.

But the network of so-called illegals — spies operating under false names outside of diplomatic cover — also used cyber-age technology, according to the charges. They embedded coded texts in ordinary-looking images posted on the Internet, and they communicated by having two agents with laptops containing special software pass casually as messages flashed between them.

And like I said, they completely blended in in suburbia and even had American born children:

Neighbors in Montclair, N.J., of the couple who called themselves Richard and Cynthia Murphy were flabbergasted when a team of F.B.I. agents turned up Sunday night and led the couple away in handcuffs. One person who lives nearby called them “suburbia personified,” saying that they had asked people for advice about the local schools. Others worried about the Murphys’ elementary-age daughters.

UK's Telegraph explains that this bunch weren't quite the harmless middle-classers that they appeared to be (also, I wonder if even they were shocked by the corruption they found in our Congressional politics):

The FBI arrested 10 people for allegedly serving for years as secret agents of Russia's intelligence service, the SVR, with the goal of penetrating US government policy-making circles.

It is alleged that they were tasked with gleaning intelligenceon nuclear weapons, foreign policy and Congressional politics.

The 10 arrested are accused of conspiracy to act as unlawful agents of a foreign government. Nine of them also face a charge of conspiracy to launder money.

An 11th suspect named "Christopher R Metsos" was arrested on Tuesday in Cyprus.

It also emerged that one of the 10 was in contact with a subsidiary group of Oxford University.

A subsidiary group of Oxford? What, the faculty and majority of professors? It wouldn't surprise me. After all, Putin was said to have waxed fondly for the 'glory days' of the USSR, perhaps leftist academics do too.

Thanks to each and every one who has supported this site with your visits and comments.

Rational Nation USA appreciates the continued support of its readership and welcomes any suggestions you might have to improve the site.

Rational Nation sends out a special thanks to the Left Coast Rebel for its support of Rational Nation USA and for the opportunity Tim gave for Rational Nation USA to post at his awesome site. I am equally grateful for his outstanding posts at Rational Nation USA.

A further note of thanks goes out to The Humble Libertarian whose talents and patience resulted in the recent site redesign this year. Wes, you did a great job and I am thankful for your continued help and support. Your recent post at RN USA was great!! Thanks you.

And finally a word of thanks goes out to The Oracular Opinion and Pamela Hart for her occasional posts at RN USA. Pam took some time off recently but is now back at the keyboard I see. Welcome back Pam!

It was an interesting and exciting year for Rational Nation USA. The coming year will be even more so.

Rational Nation USA is looking to grow its list of contributors to the site. Anyone who has interest please visit the sites contact page and send off an e-mail indicating interest.

Once again thank you and have a great summer!

Les Carpenter III

Editor in Chief

Rational Nation USA

PS: As I and the lovely and patient bride will be vacationing for the next two weeks posts by the editor will be light. The Left Coast Rebel has graciously agreed to provide content for the enjoyment of Rational Nation USA's readers. Thanks again Reb!!

Narcolepsy of the brain, if I were to surmise from Elena Kagan's empty, flowery, worthless speechifying today.

Exit question - Does, "I've learned that we make progress by listening to each other across every apparent political or ideological divide..."

Substitute, 'I do solemnly swear to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the Unites States, so help me God?'

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Hey there! Wes Messamore here. In this video, I narrate my most recent article at CAIVN- Jack Hunter style. Opponents of cannabis legalization worry that it will have a detrimental effect on society. That feeling is understandable, but citing a Cato study, I take a look at Portugal where all drugs were decriminalized in 2001. Ten years later not only has Portugal avoided a nightmare of spiraling drug addiction, all signs indicate that drug use in Portugal has declined. Enjoy!

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen views the national debt (and the projected 512 billion in interest in 2012) as the greatest threat to our national security. Of course he is absolutely correct. This nation can not sustain continued deficit spending ad infinitum.

Video:

Pentagon leaders, the military services and defense contractors must work together to cut bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary programs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Thursday.

Adm. Mike Mullen also renewed his warning that the nation’s debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security.

“I was shown the figures the other day by the comptroller of the Pentagon that said that the interest on our debt is $571 billion in 2012,” Mullen said at a breakfast hosted by The Hill. “That is, noticeably, about the size of the defense budget. It is not sustainable.”

The Admiral is concerned with the countries ability to continue to fund the military at levels that allow us to be the world's policeman. Which translates into this... Allowing the military industrial complex to maintain traditional style American security. Which translates into the interventionist foreign policy we have had every since Woodrow Wilson.

There is no doubt but what our Leviathan government is bankrupting us with it's European style socialist collectivist entitlements. Namely social security and the level of unfunded entitlement liabilities. Every one realizes we need a strong vibrant economy, and most realize we need a government that lives within it's means In order to accomplish both we simply are going to need to reform our entitlement programs and reduce spending by cutting unnecessary programs and streamlining those that are necessary. Sooner or later later we must realize, as Admiral Mullen does, it is critical to our national security.

The Defense budget cannot be a sacred cow either. Every American want's our nation to be secure. They realize this requires a strong well equipped military with the most modern technology. Maintaining a strong national defense does not mean we must maintain a global presence with troops spread all over the world. The interventionist foreign policy posture we have maintained has been costly, has on occasions caused ill will
and needs to be re thought. Just by scaling back our overextended military presence and finding a way to close out the Iraq and Afghanistan engagements we could save hundreds of millions of dollars.

So the Admiral is right. But we need to look at the budget in it's entirety, make rational and sensible decisions and then cut away. The other thing we need to do is maintain balanced annual budgets going forward.

The chart above is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.. Hmm...

While the private sector has lost almost 8 million jobs since the start of the current recession in January 2008, the public sector (Government) has created 590 thousand. Since the passage of the so called stimulus bill in February 2009 the public sector added 400 thousand jobs. The private sector on the other hand has lost 2.65 million jobs since the pork barrel bill was passed.

If memory serves... Didn't the EIC (Economist In Chief) claim the package would create 3.5 million jobs? Perhaps the EIC was using fuzzy feel good numbers to arrive at his grandiose claim. Or perhaps he meant 3.5 million jobs created over the next decade. Whatever the logic it doesn't seem to be working for him. In addition the EIC is growing the nation's budget deficits even faster than GWB did.

One has to wonder when, or if the guy will ever "get it." Government cannot now, nor could it ever "create" jobs. Creating jobs is the function of the private sector and it is best left to the consumer of goods and services to create the demand that will result in job creation.

Perhaps it was best said in these words from Ayn Rand... “The only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.”

Friday, June 25, 2010

This morning, KOOK brought your attention to the leftist/Obama attempt to take adavantage of the gulf oil spill. I'm pointing you to perhaps the first FDR era-esque pushback from massive Federal power grabs from the Leviathan. His name is Judge Martin L.C. Feldman and he's not backing down from his ruling to lift the moratorium on drilling:

The Interior Departmenthad petitioned Judge Martin L.C. Feldman late Wednesday to grant a stay of his decision, which lifted a ban on new drilling projects and on work on the 33 rigs already in place in the gulf.

But Feldman said he was denying the delay for the same reasons he gave for his decision Tuesday: that the moratorium was doing "irreparable harm" to the businesses in the gulf that depend on drilling activity and that the government had not given sufficient basis for the moratorium.

The Republic lives as does perhaps limits on an all-powerful, extra-constitutional executive branch. Nevertheless, for striking down 'Hugo' Obama's knee jerk moratorium, Judge Martin L.C. Feldman has had to face that which the far-left does best - violent intimidation when things don't go their way:

New Orleans--While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.

It is a sad, pathetic indictment of our society that Judge Feldman would have to fear for his life by basically following the letter of the law. Perhaps though, it is not surprising considering that we have a 'community organizer' sitting in the Oval Office.

The violent left is just taking community-agitating to it's logical conclusion. God Bless and protect Judge Martin L.C. Feldman and those of us that stand up to the mob, for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Mr.Walker, President and CEO Peter G.Peterson Foundation makes many points covering a broad scope of issues. Not everyone will agree in total, however American politicians as well as all citizens need to hear the message and begin taking credible action to reverse our current course. Which as we all know id self defeating and destructive.l

Nick Gillespie's interview of David Walker took place was part of Reason Weekend, an annual conference held by Reason Foundation. This years conference took place April 15 - 18 in New Orleans.

t and sustainable path., president and CEO of th discuss the deteriorating financial condition of the federal government and what needs to be done to put the country on a more prudent and sustainable path.

Community activist Elena Herrada during a panel discussion in Detroit, MI... The event was at the US Social Forum June 23, 2010.

As pointed out by Verum Serum Herrada is primarily a local activist in Detroit. She has however been quoted often in national publications. Her claim to fame is her community activism with respect to immigrant rights. Last June the NY Times Opinionator featured an article written by Herrada on immigration.

The US Social Forum is a a gathering radical progressive collectivists of significant consequence. The organization is made up of community activists and organizers as well as union leaders. To demonstrate their radical agenda here is the Forum's slogan..."Another World Is Possible, Another U.S. is Necessary."0

Herrada's comment are chilling and demonstrates great disdain for a group of law enforcement officials with the responsibility to protect our borders and and stop the flow of illegal's entering our country. Now I realize that that the effectiveness of the border patrol is wanting. However this is due to the lack of political will in both major parties. It has existed for some time and through several administrations. Perhaps it is rhetoric such as Herrada that is partially responsible for our lack of will nationally.

While Herrada did not say she was for totally open US borders in the video clip, I suspect she is fully on board with the Bush/Obama amnesty plan. What I find most disturbing is that the government media complex, ie: main stream media is likely to make no mention of Herrada's comments. yet they will dice anything the Tea Party says or does, calling them racist, homophobic, anti American, fascist, and a whole host of derogatory names.

Talk about hypocritical. Elena Herrada's comments are anti government rhetoric at the very least and in all probability racist at their worst.

California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.

The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.

State officials said Wednesday they were working to determine how much money had been withdrawn from casino ATMs by people using the welfare debit cards.

This story is nothing more than a teachable moment on just how greedy eager progressive-collectivists are to plunder the treasury of a once proud, Golden State. Did you know that almost 3 out of ten people in Los Angeles receive some sort of state 'assistance?' And that the illegal immigration/welfare state situation has turned many once-desirable areas of California into third world cities?

Perhaps the outrage of this story is not that welfare recipients cash out their welfare-atm cards at casinos but that welfare recipients in California even receive 'welfare-atm cards.'

Time for some tough love in California - time to cut off 80% of the welfare state. Don't let Obama bring this vision of America to you.

The concept of progressive collectivism is one which makes perfect sense. Of course unless one happens to be a progressive collectivist. In which case charges of Reich winger, or some other such nonsensical term will be tossed out by the left in it's attempt to dismiss the terms validity.

Lets start by looking at the specific definition of each word (or concept) followed by the natural linage. Definitions taken from Websters New Collegiate Dictionary.

Progressive - a: one that is progressive b: one believing in moderate political change and esp. social improvement by government action

Collectivism - a: a political or economic theory advocating collective control esp. over production and distribution or a system marked by such control

A progressive is someone who believes it is the proper function of the federal government (through political activism) is to advance social and economic theory that results in social legislation being passed which over time has significantly altered our market based capitalist system of economics.

The advancement of progressive thought has resulted in our country becoming less individualistic and self reliant. Through the combined efforts of liberal academia as personified by Wilsonian thought, and progressives in government, America has increasingly accepted the notion they are entitled to benefits as provided by, and compliments of Leviathan.

For progressivism to work requires a strong central source of control. It requires a body that can enact laws placing authority in the hands of the government to establish tax code and collect the loot. The progressives goal simply stated is to redistribute wealth in the Utopian ideal of raising the collective good.

The Leviathan government acts as the collective force towards the advancement of the progressives agenda. As we have moved further and further into the realm of progressive collectivism so has our dependency on the federal government increased. The less individualistic and self reliant America becomes the less able we will be to enjoy the benefits of liberty. When individuals become dependent on others they by give up some of their right to liberty. America is an elective republic and therefore loss of liberty is in large share by our own doing. At least for now.

As Frederic Bastiat observed:

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Benjamin Franklin simplified it saying:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

I was just reading Michelle Malkin this morning and she thinks that it is possible:

This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat, and fraud. Immigration will be no different.

More to the point, as I’ve reported many times and in-depth in my blog posts, colum ns, and books, open-borders activists and open-borders politicians have accomplished illegal alien amnesty-by-special order with almost no grass-roots resistance for years.

She points readers to a 2004 video from Chicago in which Obama advocates trading border security for amnesty:

U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR HILDA SOLIS: “You work hard, and you have the right to be paid fairly. I’m U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and it is a serious problem in this country when workers are not being paid every cent they have earned. Remember, every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly, whether documented or not. So call us, it is free and confidential….”

Arizona Democrats facing tough reelection races are distancing themselves from the Obama administration as it prepares to file a lawsuit against the state over its controversial immigration law.

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on Monday sent a sharply worded letter to President Barack Obama urging him not to sue.

“I believe your administration’s time, efforts and resources would be much better spent securing the border and fixing our broken immigration system,” the two-term congressman wrote in the letter. “Arizonans are tired of the grandstanding, and tired of waiting for help from Washington. … [A] lawsuit won’t solve the problem. It won’t secure the border, and it won’t fix our broken immigration system.”

With so much going on today like the BP Deep Water Horizon disaster, General Chrystal's loose lip fiasco, our growing national debt, Iran's nuclear threat, the possibility of more restrictions on free speech should The Disclosure Act succeed, and so much more I feel sorta guilty for taking about the progressive collectivists fixation on race. Or more specifically their demonstrated tendency for race baiting and referring to conservatives and Tea Party Supporters as racist, or motivated by alleged racial bias.

To be blunt I get tired, and yes sick to my stomach reading some of the race baiting crap the left writes and spews from their mouths. Based on nothing other than their own tendency towards racism.

Rather than me, an independent conservative/libertarian discussing this issue further I turn your attention to one who certainly would know, and understand the issue with more depth and clarity than perhaps I or any white man could. He sheds light on the progressive collectivists in the democratic party and exposes the reality politics rather than the fabrications the left has pushed for years.

Here then a perspective from Kevin Jackson from The Black Sphere. The following may be perceived as offensive by the progressive collectivist, and perhaps by some on the more conservative and libertarian side as well.

Kevin Jackson giving a rabid liberal his comeuppance.

This next one really highlights the left's obvious biases and race baiting. Kevin Jackson trumped every weak statement and assertion the MSNBC commentator made.

Now for a little history from Mr. Jackson.

And some more earlier history.

There is a whole bunch more, but certainly this is enough to get even the most rabid progressive collectivists and died in the wool democrats thinking about their tendency to race bait and sling the "R" thingy around at will.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

This morning CNBC ran a program on worldwide economic 'austerity' which essenentially comes down to developed nations raising taxes and America spending itself into generational bankruptcy. Cato's Tad DeHaven was on hand to combat the Keynsian 'spend yourself into prosperity' typical media go-to-guy.

I noted the hostility that the CNBC talking-bobblehead along with the guest treated Cato's Tad Dehaven. If anything other than predictable, it gave me an excuse then to plug Cato's new site Downsizing the Federal Government which lists Federal bureaucracy by egregious bureaucracy and ways that they can be cut, scaled back, etc.

The beltway is all a'twitter over a Rolling Stone (of all places) interview with Obama top general, the guy appointed by Obama to run the war in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. Of course it's a breach of 'protocol' and all of that. Here's an excerpt from the first page (of six) from the Rolling Stone article:

The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. "It was a 10-minute photo op," says an adviser to McChrystal. "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f*cking war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed."

Even those who support McChrystal and his strategy of counterinsurgency know that whatever the general manages to accomplish in Afghanistan, it's going to look more like Vietnam than Desert Storm. "It's not going to look like a win, smell like a win or taste like a win," says Maj. Gen. Bill Mayville, who serves as chief of operations for McChrystal. "This is going to end in an argument."

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal's new marching orders have

caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire,

soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. "Bottom line?" says a former Special

Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I would love

to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers' lives in even

greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing."

I'll summarize the McChrystal affair for you.

According to General McChrystal, Obama is disengaged and incompetent and intimidated by military brass.

'Success' in Afghanistan will look like Vietnam (which surely is a terrible thing).

McChrystal's breach of protocol hearkens to a general that is burned out, ham-strung, frustrated and most likely wants to be fired but probably won't be (if he does, he went out with a bang).

The rules of engagement in Afghanistan are limiting and constricting and even worse, put troop's lives at risk (perhaps the best case for withdrawal I can think of).

Judging by the White House reaction, McChrystal probably hit close to the mark. On queue, Robert Gibbs this morning hinted at McChrystal may not being 'capable and mature' enough for his position.

UPDATED: Oh, yah - CBS has an article up today that shows that broad swaths of the American public have about as much faith and trust in Obama's leadership on domestic issues as McChrystal does in Afghanistan. Oh my.

A sensible outlook on Republicanism, limited government, liberty, and the Tea Party movement.

At a Cato Institute Capitol Hill briefing, Cato Institute scholar John Samples described the challenge for those who want to limit the size and scope of government. He goes into detail on recent efforts to do just that in his new Cato book, The Struggle to Limit Government. Samples is director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government.

Many of us on the thoughtful conservative side have been saying for some time that Barrack Hussein Obama is essentially a statist. One who has the capacity and will to set our country even more firmly on the road to a Leviathan and tyrannical government.

President Obama, true to his "Hope and Change" vision has set the course to fundamentally chge the way American government functions. He has been attempting to consolidate more power in the federal government and increase its control over the private and business sector.

His huge scale federal federal bailout legislation, the take over of GM, the massive health insurance reform legislation, the BP shakedown, the increasing the size of the executive branch and appointment of czars accountable to no one a but a few examples.

George W. Bush was guilty of a large scale expansion in the role the fed played in our lives. But BHO will make GWB look like a minnow alongside a shark. The door was thrown open and the way paved for the ultimate progressive collectivist to take the helm.

Thomas Sowell, a conservative many have great respect for as do I had the following to say about the current occupant of the White House.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

We are living in uncertain times, and the thought of Barrack Hussein Obama steering the ship of state is a frightening one. This man has it in his power to change the very make up of American society and its principals unless We The People prevent him from doing so. The ballot box will be as important in 2010 and 2012 as it ever has been.

Monday, June 21, 2010

All political movements start with a cause. That is to say they have a purpose and an agenda which the supporters of the cause believe will make their society a better place to live. History has shown that societies with the most intrusive and leviathan governments are the least effective and restrict the liberties of individuals too the greatest degree.

The classical liberals, whose philosophy of governance was anchored in the Enlightenment and The Age of Reason, believed in maximum liberty for the individual. They were wary of government, believing it was as much a force for evil as good. Classical Liberalism was about the individual, the rights of the individual, and the belief that the individual was not a vassal of the state, but rather should be the master of the state, limiting it's interference in the lives of the people.

I have been accused of not being able to recognize liberty or individualism if it bit me in the ass. From a proud progressive collectivist of course. Anyone wishing to read TAO's comment in full can do so here. In fact if one would like to read his recent rebuttal to my "From Classical Liberalism To Progressive Collectivism" you can find it at Corrupting Conservatives , I warn you though it is more of the same convoluted logic and fluff from the progressive collectivist right. Still it is good to know the mind of one's adversaries.

Conservatives, Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley conservatives and Libertarians are the first to defend the principals upon which this nation was founded. For to be a conservative or Libertarian in the modern world in deed as well as in name is to recognize that liberty can only be realized when people are as free as possible to determine their own course with limited government interference. The classical liberals understood this and gave their lives to create a country built on these principals. A true conservative and Libertarian understands, admires, and respects the principals of classical liberalism.

The modern day liberal, or as my earlier article more accurately identifies as progressive collectivists, would be the first to deny the individuals pre eminence above the state and therefore are nothing more than obstacles to liberty. The modern day liberal, or progressive collectivist, simply fails to understand that Leviathan government and the nanny state are not compatible with liberty. Their motivation, the byline of this article, is simply this. Control. The progressive collectivists wishes to control society through big government and its regulatory tentacles thereby limiting liberty to that which Leviathan decides we are entitled to. Welcome back pre 18th century political thought, compliments of the progressive collectivists.

A side note, our friend TAO, I use the term friend loosely and with sarcasm here, seems to enjoy referencing the fact our founding fathers had slaves. This is certainly true of early America, as it would be for most civilization at one time in world history. It is also true that the blacks of Africa sold their own brothers and sisters into slavery. As reprehensible, disgusting, and bigoted as the slave trade was it is because of our founding documents, and the efforts a later generation of classical liberals we eliminated the practice. I shall leave further comment to perhaps a future article.

Suffice it to say TAO is race baiting. The reality is that he and his fellow progressive collectivists will work to ensure that everyone loses liberty equally and the Leviathan government will be the arbiter of the scope and depth of the loss.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

We recently summarized the big-government/Obamanation failure that the gulf oil spill represents. Of course, the summary was nothing more than a basic summary and examples flow (no pun intended) in each and every day.

As the oil flows Obama's State Department is sitting on aid offered from 23 separate countries. Jim Hoft got his hands on the documents that show this. This is just the first page of 5 from the State Department's site:

Page 2 shows that the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) aid has been accepted:

One of the most disconcerting things about the prolific rise of the Obamanation in American press (from gossip rags to daily front page features of 'mainstream' press and the network news) was the deaf ear and eye to the man's radicalism (not to mention mentors - Frank Marshall Davis, anyone?). Withouth the useful idiots that surround us, from WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan to 'conservative' former representative J.C. Watts, the circle wouldn't have been complete. Jorn Barger at Daily Pundit gives thanks (sort of) to the useful idiots among us:

Listen up, you punked, chumped boobs: We looked at Obama not through your rose colored hallucinations, but through the cold, clear spectacles of reality. None of what he’s done since has surprised us one bit. In fact, many of us, myself included, predicted it even before his coronation by people like you. Yes, it’s nice that after a year and a half of horrible examples, the truth about him is finally beginning to penetrate your skulls. But why, for the love of god, couldn’t you see it at the beginning, when it was no less obvious, but your understanding of it might have done some good?

And offers up a prediction:

Actually, never mind. Since Obama’s election will turn out to be the worst thing to happen to the leftist project in America in the past hundred years, and will free a generation from the chains of leftist quackery at just the time such freedom is most sorely needed, I actually thank our lucky stars for useful idiots like you two. Without such, we might have been saddled with John McCain, and that would truly have been a disaster for conservatism, liberty, and America.

Interesting, I sure hope the last section is true.

Profile of a useful idiot, taken to the most extreme conclusion imaginable:

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Reason TV:... The FCC has just taken initial steps to regulate the Internet service providers the same way it regulates telephone companies. Although Chairman Julius Genachowski has said he would use any regulatory powers with a "light touch," having the FCC control any aspect of the Internet is a really bad idea for at least three reasons.

It looks like it's coming folks. The Leviathan statist government will soon be controling our ability to use the internet as a vehicle to protest a government out of control.

Today's post has been taking shape for some time. Perhaps for the better part of my adult life. Having went from a believer in the ideology of the left as a young man hoping to improve American society in his teens and early twenties, to a conservative with a strong Republican party allegiance for two decades, to the independent conservative with strong Libertarian leanings as I write this, I have given the broad scope of politics a fair shake. What has become glaringly obvious to me is the modern liberal, or progressive as they love to be called are in reality progressive collectivists.

The terminology I attach to their movement, and a movement it is indeed, is as concise and accurate a description as I can find. It simply says modern era liberalism is progressing toward collectivism and complete state control of our economy and lives. Their belief in the right of the Leviathan government to make decisions affecting our lives, thus controlling us in ways that are akin to the Bolsheviks of an earlier era.

I digress here to make a point. The progressive collectivists will argue that they are not socialists, certainly not communist, and most definitely not fascist. Of course they are wrong on all three. Collectivism is simply the belief that the good of the collective society outweighs that of the individual. Since we are all individuals, driven by natural law to work towards the achievement of our own self interest and that of our family, a strong and powerful body must be put in place to "control" and make decisions so that society as a whole will presumably benefit. This body is of course a strong all powerful central government that will seek to redistribute a societies wealth and in the process create the nanny state. Progressive collectivism... it has been at work since the turn of the twentieth century and it is at work today. Choose your variant, they all lead to less liberty.

Progressive collectivists love to paint those of us who believe in the Constitution as written, and in a smaller and less intrusive government and the inherent right of the individual to be free... accepting total responsibility for ourselves and not expecting the government to be our nanny, are somehow deluded, deranged, or irrational wing nuts. Which brings me full circle to the by line of my post.

Our nation was founded by individuals who were extremely liberal and progressive. So liberal in fact they fostered and won a revolution. A revolution that gained thirteen British colonies their independence from a Leviathan government that had no concern for the desires of its subjects. What distinguished the liberals of the eighteenth century was their belief the rights of the individual exceeded the rights of the state. Put another way the government gained it powers only by the consent of the governed. A radial and progressive shift from the belief throughout history that the people had only those rights granted them by the government, whatever form the government might be.

The Founding Fathers, and the patriots that won this countries freedom are often referenced as "Classical Liberals." The term defines what liberalism means. Which is the unwavering belief in the individual, the right of the individual to control their own lives, and a very wary eye of government in general. The classical liberal understood that government by its very nature is as an entity designed to control and thus by it's very nature is to be controlled and its scope limited.

This is in stark contrast with the modern era progressive collectivist, who in their heart of hearts firmly believe that government is an agency for good, and that it ought to be granted sweeping powers. Progressive collectivists believe the federal government's place is not only as set forth in our Constitution, but to play the role of social engineer and master of the business sector through suffocating regulation as well. Having said this I make the point here as well that businessmen have by their very own acceptance of government subsidies played into the hands of the statist government that desires to control them as well.

To illustrate classic liberalism I offer the following examples of just how far the progressive collectivists have veered away from liberal beliefs:

Thomas Jefferson...

"With all [our] blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

"Nor was it uninteresting to the world that an experiment should be fairly and fully made whether freedom of discussion, unaided by power, is not sufficient for the propagation and protection of truth: whether a government conducting itself in the true spirit of its constitution with zeal and purity and doing no act which it would be unwilling the whole world should witness can be written down by falsehood and defamation. The experiment has been tried; [we] have witnessed the scene; our fellow citizens have looked on, cool and collected. They saw the latent source from which these outrages proceeded; they gathered around their public functionaries, and when the Constitution called them to the decision by suffrage, they pronounced their verdict, honorable to those who had served them and consolatory to the friend of man who believes he may be intrusted with his own affairs." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805.

It is clear that Jefferson, perhaps one of the staunchest proponents of liberalism believed in the individual's ability to make proper decisions with respect to their own lives and happiness. It is equally as clear that as a classical liberal he believed government should play a limited role in the affairs and lives of the people.

Samuel Adams...

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

Adams, another classical liberal is essentially saying if you prefer the chains of guaranteed security and wealth over liberty and self determination you are not a countryman. Think about it. Samuel Adams was a liberal.

Thomas Paine...

As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.

In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.

The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is

This is the introduction Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." From this short excerpt it is clear this classical liberal believed in the absence of a tyrannical government. The parallels of the era in which Paine penned his "Common Sense" and today are, to say the least frighteningly similar. But you won't find a modern era progressive collectivist even acknowledging Thomas Paine. It doesn't suit their false modern liberal progressive collectivist agenda.

George Washington... Our first President...

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.

Another classical liberal that understood the dangers of government and that governments are not bound by reason. It is also obvious this General understood the dangers of the military industrial complex just as a former modern day President understood the dangers and addressed it in his 1961 farewell speech to the nation. Are you listening Republicans?

This is an admittedly abbreviated commentary on the evolution from classical liberalism to the modern version of liberalism... which is in all reality progressive collectivism. I have intentionally left out convenient links and paths to additional supporting resources because it is available on the internet at the click of the mouse. Anyone who is truly interested in our history and the concept of limited government and individualism will take the time to do the research and arrive at to me, what is the obvious conclusion.

What is most troubling is the dishonesty of the "modern liberal progressive" movement (progressive collectivist) and their propensity to distort the truth that is true liberalism... Which is limited, effective, and honest government. Modern so called progressives, or liberals, stand for Leviathan and oppressive government. They are not honest enough to state that which they really are. They are statists that believe in the right of government to control rather than the rights of the individual free choice.

A word to the extremist right wing reactionaries, and you know who you are. You constitute an equally grave threat to the vision of the Founding Fathers and liberty. It is just as offensive and dishonest as the progressive collectivists attempt to control our lives and liberty. In fact you represent an equal, and just as threatening concern as the progressive collectivists. You represent the fascist element of the collective variant.

LinkWithin

All that seems indispensable in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former.James Madison

And so today I ask ask; " Wherein lies the accountability in this day and age of big government and growing statism."

Rational Nation USA

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.Thomas Jefferson